NEWS: Democrats: Only Slightly Less Slimy Than Republicans

reprobate said:
Sigh.

Here we go again.

For those of you who couldn't be bothered reading the source article, or have FTR's comprehension skills:

Five out of twelve Democrats voted not to release the document. One Republican clearly did, since he put the vote out. Those five initially voted to release the document, and changed their votes because of the strenuous objection of the Ranking Member.

In short, the article is not about "slimy democrats". Most Democrats on the committee voted to release the report. Those that changed their votes to withhold it, did so to assuage the second most powerful member of the committee, largely to assure the smooth running of what is supposed to be a non partisan committee.

Oh, and all the named staffers in the article were in fact Majority Staff, that is, Republican, at the time.

More sound and fury brought to you by our learned screedmonger.

Five out of twelve Democrats voted not to release the document. One Republican clearly did, since he put the vote out. Those five initially voted to release the document, and changed their votes because of the strenuous objection of the Ranking Member.

captevil said:
I love the old "both parties are equally bad" line. Sure both parties have had their share of scandals and skeletons coming out of closets, but even a passing glance shows a serious difference in the quality and quantity of them.

A shoplifter and a serial rapist are not "equally bad".

FearTheReaper said:
Man, don't you wish the world was a court of law? Then you might actually be right once in a while. This is such your typical law speak bullshit. Depends on what your definition of what is is, right?

Nothing of what you say above refutes my point. It obscures it, in a typical lawyer way.

And this makes them not pussies how? It's cute. You say exactly what I say in a different tone and with an snide arrogance and expect it to change peoples minds. There's a reason people hate lawyers. It's because they can't seperate themselves from their profession and carry their debating tactics into the real world.

Now, go back to arguing about Taft, or whatever it is you do. I'll make sure I don't click on your ignore again to read your blathering nonsense.

ericwine said:
I really don't see any difference, each party has about the same number of honest people and scoundrels.

Uncognitive said:

I agree 100%!

That's why when I'm looking for a nuanced, in-depth analysis of current political events, I look to stand-up comedians, and when I want to learn just exactly what the deal is with airline food, I consult a lawyer.

FearTheReaper said:
reprobate said:
Sigh.

Here we go again.

For those of you who couldn't be bothered reading the source article, or have FTR's comprehension skills:

Five out of twelve Democrats voted not to release the document. One Republican clearly did, since he put the vote out. Those five initially voted to release the document, and changed their votes because of the strenuous objection of the Ranking Member.

In short, the article is not about "slimy democrats". Most Democrats on the committee voted to release the report. Those that changed their votes to withhold it, did so to assuage the second most powerful member of the committee, largely to assure the smooth running of what is supposed to be a non partisan committee.

Oh, and all the named staffers in the article were in fact Majority Staff, that is, Republican, at the time.

More sound and fury brought to you by our learned screedmonger.

Man, don't you wish the world was a court of law? Then you might actually be right once in a while. This is such your typical law speak bullshit. Depends on what your definition of what is is, right?

Nothing of what you say above refutes my point. It obscures it, in a typical lawyer way.

Five out of twelve Democrats voted not to release the document. One Republican clearly did, since he put the vote out. Those five initially voted to release the document, and changed their votes because of the strenuous objection of the Ranking Member.

And this makes them not pussies how?

It's cute. You say exactly what I say in a different tone and with an snide arrogance and expect it to change peoples minds. There's a reason people hate lawyers. It's because they can't seperate themselves from their profession and carry their debating tactics into the real world.

Now, go back to arguing about Taft, or whatever it is you do. I'll make sure I don't click on your ignore again to read your blathering nonsense.

N8theSk8 said:
I love it when naive people make blanket statements about a system they don't understand,

problem is no one's watching the Dems, and hasn't been for a long time.

FearTheReaper said:
BAM! you got me. And like Retrobate your "facts" are totally incorrect.

FearTheReaper said:
The report details how many senior aides knew what The Duke was up to, but failed to take action.

9. We have found no evidence that any HPSCI staff member, current or former, sought to profit, or expected to profit personally from any of the funding requests in question. We also have found no evidence that any HPSCI staffer was aware of, or in any way participated in, any financial inducements provided to Cunningham by Wilkes, Wade or anyone else.

"the document fails to address whether other committee members were aware of Cunningham's abuses or were culpable."

Uncognitive said:
FearTheReaper said:
BAM! you got me. And like Retrobate your "facts" are totally incorrect.

FearTheReaper said:
I was referring to the post you made about me, the one you quickly deleted here.

Uncognitive said:

Uh, no they're not.

Five of the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee voted to release the report. You failed to mention this in your article, since it goes against your "both the Democrats and the GOP are corrupt" shtick.

Two weeks ago, several Democrats on the committee voted to block the report's release to other members of Congress.

Uncognitive said:The same GOP member of the panel, Peter Hoekstra, was the one who most vigorously opposed releasing this report, both when he headed the committee and again now that he's only the ranking GOP member. He's the one who convinced Silvestre Reyes and several other Democratic members of the committee to change their minds and join with all of the GOP members of the committee in voting to block the release of this report to Congress. Again, you failed to mention this, because you want to blame the Democrats alone.

Uncognitive said:So what, exactly, is the Democratic Party's "shady part in the Duke Cunningham scandal"? What evidence do you have that any Democratic staffer or member of the Intelligence Committee, current or former, was aware of or involved with Cunningham's bribe-taking?

"They are so nervous about this report being out," said one congressional official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Members oppose putting this thing out because you read this and the natural question is: 'Did you know this, and what did you do about it?' I don't think any members wanted that scrutiny."

Uncognitive said: More fun "facts" you fudged:
FearTheReaper said:
The report details how many senior aides knew what The Duke was up to, but failed to take action.

Overall, the document provides a penetrating look into how the committee itself became central to the scandal, describing an atmosphere in which senior aides were deeply troubled by Cunningham's actions but nevertheless complied with his requests out of fear.

And the report sheds new light on the roles of senior committee aides, including retired CIA case officer Brant Bassett, who had ties to Cunningham and Foggo as well as to contractors accused of paying the congressman millions of dollars.

The funding requests were repeatedly granted, Meermans said, even though staffers "started smelling something really bad in the program.

Even Bassett expressed discomfort with Cunningham's manipulation of the system. According to the report, Bassett told senior committee staffers that he had "no confidence that Mitch Wade or anybody he was connected with really knew anything about counterintelligence or could do a good job for the U.S. taxpayer in that area."

Even so, the money continued to be earmarked for Wade's company, MZM, partly because staffers were intimidated by Cunningham.

Uncognitive said:Also, from the L.A. Times article:

Current and former intelligence committee officials said staffers facing such pressure would almost certainly call the issue to the attention of their elected bosses.

Uncognitive said:

What post would that be? I haven't deleted any posts in this thread that I know of.

And I'm still wondering exactly what the Democratic Party's ""shady part in the Duke Cunningham scandal" is.

Uncognitive said:I agree 100%!

That's why when I'm looking for a nuanced, in-depth analysis of current political events, I look to stand-up comedians, and when I want to learn just exactly what the deal is with airline food, I consult a lawyer.

FearTheReaper said: Oh, I'm done here. The only thing we have established is that partisan idiots exist on both sides. Thanks.

Uncognitive said:

Well then fair enough. Keep on speaking semi-truth to power, man!

FearTheReaper said:


The implication of the article is obvious. Every liberal blog has taken the same view I have. Get over it.